Post-Game Talk: #45 | Ducks at Flyers | January 17, 2023

[Curufinwe]

If he just didn’t play it likely isn’t even questioned.

That’s nonsensical. He’s played every single game in his pro career excerpt for when Covid rules forced him out. You can’t randomly sit Provorov for a game without a good reason and except people to accept it.

This is where I’m at. If Provorov doesn’t want to wear the jersey, so be it. That’s his right. But could the Flyers PR staff have botched this any worse? Make up an excuse for FFS. This will only drive his trade value down and further drive a stake between the organization and Provorov.

Make up an excuse and make Provorov lie about the reason and assume the truth will remain hidden forever.

Great plan.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

That’s nonsensical. He’s played every single game in his pro career excerpt for when Covid rules forced him out. You can’t randomly sit Provorov for a game without a good reason and except people to accept it.

When you have the God Emperor of Accountability it’s actually quite simple to do at least at the start.

After all we have more than a few people in this fanbase that notice his shitty play and complain about him never having to answer for it.

Morale of the story is that Tortorella does in fact care about wins. Another dispelled fantasy regarding the man.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

The only thing the team could have done differently is not have the jerseys at all if they knew the full team wouldn't buy in, which it seems they could have easily figured out

 

[deadhead]

I think it was stupid in the first place to have the players wear those jerseys, other than a crude attempt to create a piece of merchandise to appeal to a niche group of customers.

I have no problem with the organization promoting Gay Pride night, or any other marketing move (which is all it really is, the Flyers didn't suddenly become PC, they wouldn't have considered this 20 years ago or even 10, but attitudes have changed and now they feel they can market to a niche group without alienating other fans).

I'm also cynical about people's attitudes, I remember the 60s and Anti-War protests, then once the draft was abolished, gee, all those white kids who seemed so idealistic faded into the woodwork and were more worried about jobs and housing than social justice once their ass wasn't on the line - one reason structural racism persisted - because those "idealistic" white kids didn't care. So excuse me if I don't take "holier than thou" attitudes too seriously.

I don't agree with practically anything Evangelical Christians (and ultra-Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims have similar beliefs with regard to homosexuality and women's social role) believe, but I do believe that as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others, their views should be respected to the extent of not forcing them to deny such views (that's different than allowing them to ban books in school libraries or engage in other hostile behavior toward those they consider "sinners.") It's funny how those who decrie Islamophobia (ignoring that they would detest the world view of the vast majority of the world's Muslims, since their experience is with mostly Westernized, urban Muslims who are akin to mainstream Protestants) have no problem with similar attitudes toward fundamentalist Christians.

Legally, the first amendment only applies to government action, but if we want to live in a free society, we must affirm both freedom of speech and freedom from coerced speech - but we shouldn't depend on law to control behavior - we need to promote both tolerance and manners. We can both have zero tolerance for bullying yet refrain from shoving our views down the throats of those who differ from us. A little more common sense, and a little less PC or right wing self-righteousness would go a long way.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

The only thing the team could have done differently is not have the jerseys at all if they knew the full team wouldn't buy in, which it seems they could have easily figured out

They could have easily just had Provorov wear his normal game jersey. The reasonable deduction, IMO, that one can make from what happened is that the team told him no to that because it would create an immediate spectacle.

 

[BringBackHakstol]

They could have easily just had Provorov wear his normal game jersey. The reasonable deduction, IMO, that one can make from what happened is that the team told him no to that because it would create an immediate spectacle.

Yeah, that could have been better too

 

[Beef Invictus]

I think it was stupid in the first place to have the players wear those jerseys, other than a crude attempt to create a piece of merchandise to appeal to a niche group of customers.

I have no problem with the organization promoting Gay Pride night, or any other marketing move (which is all it really is, the Flyers didn't suddenly become PC, they wouldn't have considered this 20 years ago or even 10, but attitudes have changed and now they feel they can market to a niche group without alienating other fans).

I'm also cynical about people's attitudes, I remember the 60s and Anti-War protests, then once the draft was abolished, gee, all those white kids who seemed so idealistic faded into the woodwork and were more worried about jobs and housing than social justice once their ass wasn't on the line - one reason structural racism persisted - because those "idealistic" white kids didn't care. So excuse me if I don't take "holier than thou" attitudes too seriously.

I don't agree with practically anything Evangelical Christians (and ultra-Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Muslims have similar beliefs with regard to homosexuality and women's social role) believe, but I do believe that as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others, their views should be respected to the extent of not forcing them to deny such views (that's different than allowing them to ban books in school libraries or engage in other hostile behavior toward those they consider "sinners.") It's funny how those who decrie Islamophobia (ignoring that they would detest the world view of the vast majority of the world's Muslims, since their experience is with mostly Westernized, urban Muslims who are akin to mainstream Protestants) have no problem with similar attitudes toward fundamentalist Christians.

Legally, the first amendment only applies to government action, but if we want to live in a free society, we must affirm both freedom of speech and freedom from coerced speech - but we shouldn't depend on law to control behavior - we need to promote both tolerance and manners. We can both have zero tolerance for bullying yet refrain from shoving our views down the throats of those who differ from us. A little more common sense, and a little less PC or right wing self-righteousness would go a long way.

Try a functional comparison, like opposition to civil rights. That one fits, especially because religion was used as a shield for that too.

I'd like to see your manifesto doubting those.

I also look forward to these convictions changing completely as Tortorella has to change his tune. That will be the funniest part of all.

 

[freakydallas13]

I’m utterly shocked to come on here this morning and see a manifesto that dives into topics no one is talking about and taking a mostly contrarian stance.

SHOCKED.

Contrarians gonna contrate, they can't help themselves.

 

[macleish1974]

Sorry I'm late but those two goals, one each by Risto and " I have no talent" Frost really hypnotized me



Jeff wanted to release Superstition, a Stevie Wonder song, but Stevie was first.......

 

[Ghosts Beer]

Actually, I support Provorov, imagine if there was a MAGA night.

Requiring players to publicly support political, social or religious positions and views they don't agree with is wrong, same way an employer doing that to any employee is wrong.

It's one thing to demand tolerance and manners, if he was calling players "Homophobic Slurs" or engaged in hostile behavior in any way, that should be strictly condemned and punished, but asking him to actually affirm behavior that goes contrary to his religious belief is also wrong. How would you feel if your company required you to put a MAGA sign in your front yard?

There's a difference between the right of Gay people to demand nondiscrimination, that is, they should have the same right as all Americans, to speak and live their lives freely without fear of punishment (economic or social) or violence. It's quite another to demand that those who have religious or cultural objections to such behavior to have to actively affirm that behavior as acceptable to them or lose their livelihood.

Freedom must extend to those whose believe differently than "we" do, or it's just a sham.
If we coerce people to "speak" only what we consider tolerable, we no longer believe in freedom of speech, but merely the freedom of politically correct speech.
Even hate speech should be protected, as the Supreme Court has ruled.

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

I would point out that this pendulum swung the other way for most of American history, that speech that didn't correspond to the norms of a different era was suppressed, which included support for Gay rights, civil rights, socialism, anti-war, separation of church and state and other unpopular beliefs, and it took a couple centuries to firmly establish freedom of speech, and the principle of free discourse as a social norm. There was a time when the ACLU fought those battles for both the Left and the Right to engage in unpopular speech.

This is an excellent post & the proper perspective.

 

[flyersnorth]

There are certainly some takes today.

Meanwhile, that Frost goal was something. So slick!

 

[landsbergfan]

That’s going to be the interesting thing to me. I wish the team just said he had an equipment issue, and left it at that.

Upper body injury

 

[blackjackmulligan]

It was so very simple for the Flyers to just not play him tonight. That was the smartest decision to make here for all sides involved. No one would have asked any questions besides "we've heard trade rumors, is anything in motion?"

Now you get this. The organization is going to get DRAGGED.

Why should he not play? He did nothing wrong.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Why should he not play? He did nothing wrong.

A little thing called Public Relations. My statement isn't that he should never play again but that the organization did the worst possible thing (as per usual) last night in this situation, IMO.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

Your original statement was that he could have warmed up in a regular jersey and I said that the Flyers likely didn’t ok that as it would be an immediate spectacle.

We’re arguing semantics here. No matter what the organization looks bad.

How does the organization look bad? Because he wouldn't wear the jersey?

 

[BernieParent]

It's funny how those who decrie Islamophobia (ignoring that they would detest the world view of the vast majority of the world's Muslims, since their experience is with mostly Westernized, urban Muslims who are akin to mainstream Protestants) have no problem with similar attitudes toward fundamentalist Christians.

This came to my mind, too.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

A little thing called Public Relations. My statement isn't that he should never play again but that the organization did the worst possible thing (as per usual) in this situation, IMO.

Disagree. Not playing him solves what exactly? He didn't want to wear it. So what. No way should be punished for it.

So them allowing him to play is the worst thing possible? Not allowing him to play would be way worse.

There are certainly some takes today.

Meanwhile, that Frost goal was something. So slick!

lots of sticky keyboards this morning. Was a very nice play. To have that much time is a terrible look for the ducks.

 

[Hollywood Cannon]

Disagree. Not playing him solves what exactly? He didn't want to wear it. So what. No way should be punished for it.

So them allowing him to play is the worst thing possible? Not allowing him to play would be way worse.

Not playing him solves the media shitstorm for at least a time before the reason he didn't play may or may not inevitably leak.

Punished? He still gets paid and the organization would be shielding him and themselves from the criticism that they're now receiving (at least for a time). You throw him out there the next game.

It's very simple. It's common sense PR stuff. The second that he didn't warm up and they threw him out there in the game it opened the organization to criticism from all sides.

 

[blackjackmulligan]

Not playing him solves the media shitstorm for at least a time before the reason he didn't play may or may not inevitably leak.

Punished? He still gets paid and the organization would be shielding him and themselves from the criticism that they're now receiving (at least for a time). You throw him out there the next game.

It's very simple. It's common sense PR stuff. The second that he didn't warm up and they threw him out there in the game it opened the organization to criticism from all sides.

Well here is the thing. Lets say they didn't play him. You full well know it would get out, so then that creates an even worse situation to me. Way worse.

He made his bed. He needs to take the heat. He knew it would come. Unwarranted heat imo as so tired of peeps making a huge deal out of nothing. Punished is not playing. Not talking monetary.

To me it was the right call and not even a discussion not to play him.

Sports needs to go back to just being sports. Also need to stop catering and bowing down to every cause and what not.

 

[Beef Invictus]

Not playing him solves the media shitstorm for at least a time before the reason he didn't play may or may not inevitably leak.

Punished? He still gets paid and the organization would be shielding him and themselves from the criticism that they're now receiving (at least for a time). You throw him out there the next game.

It's very simple. It's common sense PR stuff. The second that he didn't warm up and they threw him out there in the game it opened the organization to criticism from all sides.

Not playing him ensures the shit storm is fully on the player alone. Now it is on the player and team. Unsure why people can't quite get that

 

[Beef Invictus]

Well here is the thing. Lets say they didn't play him. You full well know it would get out, so then that creates an even worse situation to me. Way worse.

He made his bed. He needs to take the heat. He knew it would come. Unwarranted heat imo as so tired of peeps making a huge deal out of nothing. Punished is not playing. Not talking monetary.

To me it was the right call and not even a discussion not to play him.

Sports needs to go back to just being sports. Also need to stop catering and bowing down to every cause and what not.

It would not be worse if they didn't play him. The opposite is true. The team would be clear of blame and Provorov would be fully to blame.

The one time the team has a valid reason to run over a player for their own image and they don't do it.

 

[freakydallas13]

This is an excellent post & the proper perspective.

What happened to not commenting on the off ice stuff?

 

[marcsson68]

Compelling someone to endorse a political movement to which he is opposed is a odd way to advance “tolerance” and “human equality”.

My experience with people who fanatically preach „tolerance“ is that sometimes they are among the least tolerant when their position is being opposed.

Still it is painful to see how amareurish the problem has been dealt with. They could have made up a story about his equipment (wouldn‘t even have been a lie) or health and let him sit for a couple of shifts or even the whole game.

 

[ponder719]

Feel like it's worth mentioning here that Laughton and JVR are good eggs.

 

[dats81]

It would not be worse if they didn't play him. The opposite is true. The team would be clear of blame and Provorov would be fully to blame.

The one time the team has a valid reason to run over a player for their own image and they don't do it.

So you want them to single out and blame this player who is under contract for two more seasons?